gitea_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a critical safety behavior ('Secrets are NEVER returned') and enumerates what is reported. It does not mention potential side effects, but as a read-only diagnostic tool, the key behavior is well-covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every detail serves a purpose. It is concise without sacrificing necessary diagnostic detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully explains the tool's return content, including fields and security policy, in the absence of an output schema. Given its simple zero-input nature, the description is complete for the agent to understand what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description explicitly states 'Takes no input,' which aligns with the schema. As no parameter explanation is needed, baseline 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reports resolved connection and credential state, with specific elements listed (baseUrl, credential candidates, session target). It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by focusing on diagnostics, and explicitly mentions the tool takes no input.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when a tool returns 401/403 or NotConfiguredError'), which is clear usage guidance. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, though the diagnostic purpose is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.